The Royal Institution - A mechanism of check and balance to enhance a democratic country

< INTRO >

The democratic movement is the movement of individuals who are striving to establish and
expand a democratic society. The term democracy for these individuals,names a concept that
covers far more than only a particular form of government.One democratic activist, Yale
University professor of constitutional law Jack M. Balkin, explains his view of democracy as a
culture in which all citizens can participate and feel that they have a stake, a culture in which
unjust social privilages and status hierarchies have been disestablished. Furthermore, since
culture is our human creation,it is always subject to change.The powers that be would like us to
think of culture as a given-that whether we like it or not,we ordinary people cant change it any
significant way.We are awash in information about the enormity of the worlds problems, and
this can be disabling.Overwhelmed by the magnitude of racism, poverty, violence, and other
oppressive forces,we tend to go passive.Thus, the tyranny of those who benefit from the status
quo is maintained.

On the other hand, checks and balances refers to a mechanism designed to limit power a single
individual or body of government and provide for the harmonious interrelationship of the people
and all of the organs of governments or other social institutions.Checks and balances are
intended to allow legimate power to govern and good ideas to be implemented,while abuse of
power,corruption,and oppression are minimized. The phrase checks and balances was coined
by Charles Montesquieu.The actual practice of checks and balances goes in history much longer.
In the Ancient Roman Republic, the Roman Senate made up of the wealthy class was checked
by the veto power Tribunes,who were charged with protecting the interests of the plebeians.

The general concept of checks and balances is based on the observation that many people behave
selfishly and seek to enhance their own wealth and power at the expense of others. Lord Actions
quotation, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely is taken as a truism in
political science today. The attempt to abuse ones position of power is not limited to outright
use of force,but applies to human relationships throughout all levels of society in all society and
in all social organizations from the nuclear family.In history , many societies have attempted to
rely on moral authoritiy as a check on the abuse of power. However, moral authority relies on the
conscience of the actor and does not involve force unless the moral law becomes legiastated. The
most widely known example of the relationship between moral power and the temporal power of
the state is the relationship between church and the state in the Holy Roman Empire.

Tolerance, respect and a critical spirit are important components of democracy. It means that a
person should have the freedom to criticise others, and at the same time, tolerate different
opinions, respect different views and accept criticism from others. Democratisation is a constant
process. It has never been a straight line in a single mode. Instead, it is a multi-linear process in
various modes that mutually encourages and rationally interacts. The process is tortuous.
Sometimes, it advances rapidly, sometimes, it becomes stagnant and sometimes, it goes
backward. Once democracy is presumed to be only a single line in a single mode, democracy
will then turn rigid and be dogmatised. Some people stand on the moral high ground of
democracy and rashly categorise those who are not in the same group with them as traitors and
lackeys. They do not know that democracy is not about labelling others and criticism is not about
calling each other names. On the contrary, democracy stresses on facts and reasoning, and
criticism emphasises on tolerance and respect.

Many politicians can recite very well the famous quote of French Enlightenment writer,
historian and philosopher Voltaire I do not agree with what you have to say, but Ill defend to
the death your right to say it. However, once they are criticised or being questioned, they do not
defend to the death others right to say it, but just want to shut others mouths. Perhaps, they
have forgotten, or selectively forgotten, that the main point of democracy is not conceitedness,
but checks and balances. For example, the implementation of the hudud law is an ideology of
PAS and thus, it should allow the media to raise the issue, so that people can get to know about
it, confront it, check and balance it through rational debates. If it were feasible, it would then be
accepted. However, if it were not feasible, the people would then express their worries and
discontent through various ways, forcing it to be abandoned or at least, amended, to conform to
our multiracial, multi-religious and multicultural national condition. It is a fact that non-Muslims
do not understand the hudud law.

It is not a problem as understanding can be promoted through rational view exchanges,

dialogues and discussions. Terrible problems, however, take place when some people refuse to
understand it, or even try to block all channels of communication for the sake of votes.
Democracy is not only about votes. Its greatest value is to lead the public to discuss policies and
ideologies of different parties through an electoral process, so that the people can express their
views and force political parties to continuously adjust and improve their policies and ideologies,
thereby activating the concept of democracy. The 2008 general election has inspired many
ambitious young people and intellectuals to join politics and it is indeed a good phenomenon
conducive to the development of democracy. However, if they sanctify their political parties and
think that their parties are perfect, or even too sacred to be criticised, it would then very easy for

them to lose the motive power of self-reflection, they might even flow in fanaticism and act
without consideration.